# Scum mafia: On Cecil pond \[Game Over\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [January 24, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202 "2010-01-24T05:10:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/461 "2010-02-01T21:41:54Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > FTR, **Zeriel** , I always assumed you were a guy. Now, if you were Zerielle, I’d assume female…(all that French!). Just one of those things that happens once a game or so. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/462 "2010-02-01T21:43:20Z")
> [@Meeko](#): > > Amrussell, Oredigger, Zeriel \*\*:: Does my play style for this game conflict with any of your strategies for the game? Not that I could, but would you want me to switch back, if I could? I don’t think I could claim anything as grand as a strategy for the game, but insofar as I have one, it doesn’t involve anybody’s playstyle. You’re doing fine, and you’re doing particularly fine when you focus on finding scum and not on how you’re being perceived. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/463 "2010-02-01T23:26:58Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > I was not aware of this peeker feature. > I’m not sure what to make of it, but if Peeker has stated this bizarre policy before, then his voting for storyteller in this game has even less to do with his alignment. Right? That is true. Of course, none of my case rests on his actual vote, just on his reaction to taking heat for the vote. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/464 "2010-02-01T23:33:47Z")
Additionally, peeker has accused me of lying, and yet has failed to back up that claim with any evidence. In fact, he’s failed to indicate which part of what I’ve said is a lie. He’s gotten very quiet since then, though he did indicate he had RL issues. ---
**Author:** ![peekercpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8baadc/32.png) [@peekercpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peekercpa)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/465 "2010-02-02T02:12:39Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@peeker** - Why did you feel the need to make a claim this early on Day 1? If you are town, you are just helping the scum to role-fish. \ interesting on this quote. i’ve already mentioned it twice before. what is it about the “niller” that rings a bell. not the “ton of planks” or plankton? hmm. ---
**Author:** ![Meeko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Meeko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meeko)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/466 "2010-02-02T03:32:52Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > \ > > interesting on this quote. i’ve already mentioned it twice before. what is it about the “niller” that rings a bell. not the “ton of planks” or plankton? > > hmm. So, if Peeks is Scum, that would mean he is walking the plank then, eh ? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/467 "2010-02-02T03:44:14Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Your initial “I am going to vote story or sach depending on who posts first” sucked too. Describing a bad policy and then following it is – wait for it – still bad. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > I think he made it perfectly clear that he was going to be making a pseudo-random vote for one of two players just for the hell of it. There was transparency there, and people still jumped on him for it. He could very well be Scum, but he’s also a convenient and easy bandwagon for Scum to jump on. Help me out, you two? I’ve read through the entire thread and I can’t find the post where **peeker** said he was going to do this ahead of time. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/468 "2010-02-02T05:41:41Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Help me out, you two? I’ve read through the entire thread and I can’t find the post where **peeker** said he was going to do this ahead of time. I think I’d mentioned (but I freely admit that I may only have considered doing so) that he’d claimed it was a policy vote (346, 355) but never actually had a previous post where he’d discussed that fact prior to the vote. So it’s been a pseudorandom vote, a policy vote, and a placeholder vote so far (also in 355), in addition to being an oh-so-clever scum trap. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/469 "2010-02-02T09:37:58Z")
> [@peekercpa](#): > > \ > > interesting on this quote. i’ve already mentioned it twice before. what is it about the “niller” that rings a bell. not the “ton of planks” or plankton? > > hmm. If you’ve got something you want to tell us, just tell us. Being cryptic doesn’t hide your messages from scum, it hides them from town. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/470 "2010-02-02T11:56:13Z")
**Unvote Spawn** **Vote Storyteller** **@Storyteller** - I’m not satisfied with your lack of an explanation of why you are pushing an unambiguously anti-town idea, I think you are quite strong on game mechanics. Can you even give me a hypothetical situation where a double player lyse is advantagous? I think the idea of a double player lyse on Day 1 is particularly bad. This has been quite a long game Day, but I’m not seeing a compelling case on one player, let alone two. How exactly do two near-random lynches help town? If Story is scum, I think it’s possible he’s covering for a team mate. Something to consider if he does flip scum at some point, especially if he flips goon. On peeker, I think Ed makes a reasonable case, but on point 6: > [@special\_ed](#): > > **6. Peeker changed his story, claiming that his vote wasn’t random, but was, in fact, some sort of Scum trap.** The two aren’t mutually exclusive, his vote could have been both (a random vote to get a reaction). Point 10 is the strongest: > [@special\_ed](#): > > **10. Peeker reverses his backpedal and says he thinks he’s magically found 1 or 2 Scum in his ‘trap’ (all the while not really explaining how people calling him out on poor play is a Scum trap. To me, it even seems the opposite, Scum could be quite content to either jump on peeker or to let the Town do it. Calling someone out on poor play isn’t really a Scum tell in my book.)** **@peeker** - Why did you go from thinking the people voting for you were quite likely to be town to thinking you’d found 1 or 2 scum? I don’t like the early policy votes for peeker one bit. Persistent anti-town play merits a vote, jumping on everything with a vote does not help town. > [@peekercpa](#): > > btw. **ed** is lying. when i flip town please lynch him. I cannot take this seriously unless you explain why. > [@sachertorte](#): > > Peeker’s behavior makes little to no sense as scum. What’s the big game plan? “Hey Town, Look at me! Focus on Me! Look look look!” How is this a good idea for scum? I say this not as a “scum wouldn’t do that” sort of lens, but as a “what is the possible benefit?” Is anyone going to trust peeker? Maybe he gets killed and maybe he doesn’t. Does anyone think peeker will come out of this alive AND smelling clean? No. Maybe he will make it through this Summer, but his life is in a precarious situation… future lynch or vigging are top cards for peeker. That’s a dangerous assumption to make. In the last game here (Colorless), Freudian caused absolute chaos by playing blatantly scummily, and it worked because town was reluctant to lynch her. The resulting mess was almost impossible to analyse. > [@USCDiver](#): > > It would also be unusual for a scum who is getting heat on Summer 1 to claim Vanilla as well because usually in that case they want to draw out a Pond Power role. True, but I’m not willing to give peeker a pass on this. Claiming vanilla 5 days before a deadline, when most of town doesn’t even have a vote down, is anti-town. A scum-peeker might claim vanilla for just that reason, to buy cred. **@peeker** - Please answer my question, why did you claim so early? > [@peekercpa](#): > > \ > > interesting on this quote. i’ve already mentioned it twice before. what is it about the “niller” that rings a bell. not the “ton of planks” or plankton? > > hmm. Plankton was ambiguous, I wasn’t sure whether you were using it for a synonym for town. Vanilla was unambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/471 "2010-02-02T12:42:16Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **Unvote Spawn** > **Vote Storyteller** > > **@Storyteller** - I’m not satisfied with your lack of an explanation of why you are pushing an unambiguously anti-town idea, I think you are quite strong on game mechanics. Can you even give me a hypothetical situation where a double player lyse is advantagous? This has already been explained. I think most players are in agreement that there are times when it is advantageous to lynch 2 players and no spawn. Granted the conditions might not happen. Additionally, you seem to be implying that storyteller is advocating a Day 1 two player lynch. I don’t think he or anyone else has done that. And, isn’t there some hypocrisy in casting this vote while having votes on 2 players and no spawn? Also, you accuse a Scum story of potentially protecting a teammate? Who is he trying to protect and how is he doing so? The only person it might seem he’s trying to protect is peeker. But, he’s doing that by discussing strategy?!? Did you really think that out? I’m stunned. I’m also a little pinged. ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/472 "2010-02-02T12:48:41Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Help me out, you two? I’ve read through the entire thread and I can’t find the post where **peeker** said he was going to do this ahead of time. Here is post 103, Peeker is addressing storyteller: > [@peekercpa](#): > > and no offense to anyone but yeh. > > either you or **sach**. problem is **sach** might just come clean about our potential alignment just out of general annoyance. Now, this did occur before roles were handed out, but it does provide nice cover for a soon-to-be peeker to vote story or sach (whom I consider to be strong players) And if peeker had reason to note ‘random’ vote them early, no one really would have paid any attention to a pre-role assignment post made by him. Additionally, in casually browsing some completed games, I’ve discovered a Town peeker discussing the strategy of voting for strong players, but I was unable to find a Town peeker actually following through on that strategy. (Granted, my search wasn’t exhaustive. There’s a lot of games out there.) ---
**Author:** ![special\_ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@special\_ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/special_ed)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/473 "2010-02-02T12:53:20Z")
oh my, here’s a huge NETA I just realized peeker was talking about being Scum with sach or story, not voting for them. Maybe my re-reads were louded by the later discussion of voting for a strong player. Regardless, my vote still stands because the actual vote of story wasn’t a part of my case. And I’m still bothered by peeker’s appearance to discuss his Vanilla claim while ignoring his accusation that I am lying. (as well as points 3,6,7, and 10 in my previous posts) ---
**Author:** ![Scuba\_Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Scuba\_Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scuba_Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/474 "2010-02-02T13:28:34Z")
Sunday was a hibernation day. And this week my job may have me working for a living. So I’ll do my best effort to catch up starting at post 316. What’d I miss? ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/475 "2010-02-02T13:48:25Z")
> [@special\_ed](#): > > This has already been explained. I think most players are in agreement that there are times when it is advantageous to lynch 2 players and no spawn. Granted the conditions might not happen. Additionally, you seem to be implying that storyteller is advocating a Day 1 two player lynch. I don’t think he or anyone else has done that. Story has conceded that a double player lyse isn’t going to happen toDay, but here is his last word on the subject: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > OK, last word on the double-PC vs. one-PC-one-NPC thing from me. I think I favor a double-lyse this Summer iff we have two compelling targets, because the main portion of the downside - that one Spawn will linger thereafter, until we deal with it somewhere down the road - just doesn’t seem particularly compelling to me. I think we stand a chance to generate a lot more information. I want to know why he would even entertain the idea, when the only effect is that town has less info over the course of the game on which to base lynch decisions. His argument, that spawn will somehow be dealt with later, does not stack up. Town can’t guarantee this. I’m getting tired of repeating the same basic point. All a double-player lyse does is move a lynch forward a Day. That gives us less info on which to decide that lynch, therefore less chance of hitting scum and more sediment in the voting record. Even if we have a vig, leaving spawn alive is risky. What if the vig gets blocked or killed? What if scum have a doctor? Some of the arguments that Story has made in defence of this idea do not stack up at all: > [@storyteller0910](#): > > I do not agree with this reasoning. Following it to its conclusion, we should never lynch _at all_, since we could zero our risk of mislynch by not lynching. We can’t operate that way. All other considerations aside, two lynches increases the absolute chance that we will catch at least one Scum (over one lynch). I do think it definitely increases the risk of one mislynch, but if we have one mislynch and one caught Scum, that’s definitely in our favor. Honestly, can’t you see what is wrong with that? > [@special\_ed](#): > > And, isn’t there some hypocrisy in casting this vote while having votes on 2 players and no spawn? There are plenty of votes down to ensure a spawn lyse toDay. If there is any danger at all that spawn won’t be lysed I’ll move a vote. I already said that I don’t mind people using both their votes on players. > [@special\_ed](#): > > Also, you accuse a Scum story of potentially protecting a teammate? Who is he trying to protect and how is he doing so? The only person it might seem he’s trying to protect is peeker. But, he’s doing that by discussing strategy?!? I’m wondering if a scum team-mate of Story’s might have blundered on the strategy discussion and he is covering for them. It’s very thin, and I think it’s only worth considering if Story does flip scum. It’s more likely if Story is a goon, makes the risk more worthwhile for him. If he could persuade a group of players that a double player lyse was a good idea any scum advocating that position would stand out less. > [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > So I’ll do my best effort to catch up starting at post 316. What’d I miss? amrussell made a fairly decent case against you which you should respond to. ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/476 "2010-02-02T13:52:28Z")
> [@Natlaw](#): > > **@KellyCriterion** , are you still reading along? Have you played (online) Mafia before? Bit overwhelmed I guess (not really a problem, but a sign of live is always nice)? > _As I always say ‘A post a day keeps the Scum away!’ > And in this Pond we also lyse the Spawn - although another joins us at Dawn. > Because it rhymes you’ll remember this note: don’t forget to vote!_ Still here. I’m finding this all a bit overwhelming, and by the time I have caught up reading, I have virtually no energy left to post something meaningful. Or maybe I just feel that people are making mountains out of molehills when it comes to casting suspicion at the moment, which can be exhausting to read when it’s pages and pages long. **Do I have to vote twice every round? Is one vote enough?** ---
**Author:** ![Scuba\_Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Scuba\_Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scuba_Ben)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/477 "2010-02-02T13:56:08Z")
All right, I skimmed up through my “I’m back” in 474. And I found I’m drawing some heat for commentary with **story** and observations / tongue in cheek / possible repressed metagame issues with **Meeko**. And I can’t make head or tail of the case on **peeker**. And I have only the vaguest of unfounded opinions on several people. In other words, typical Day 1 for me. Although I do note, I don’t think I’ve been accused of snuggling before. I’m going to have to reread what **Cookies** said about my posts on Thursday/Friday, to see if my position then was misrepresented, or if I misunderstood eir presentation. Or both. Also, as I can today, I’ll work up a list of who doesn’t ping my mistuned Scumdar. In the past I looked for bad guys, and failed. So this time I’ll try it the other way. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/478 "2010-02-02T14:08:27Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I want to know why he would even entertain the idea, when the only effect is that town has less info over the course of the game on which to base lynch decisions. I can’t speak for story but two reasons from me, one generic and one specific: 1. Any unambiguous policy decision on the part of town has the potential to be abused by scum. 2. When we suspect there are only 1-2 scum remaining, letting 1 spawn stay alive overnight has a strong chance of screwing up their plans by adding a significant random factor to their nightkill choices. I concede that we give up a bit of information by doing this but I can envision scenarios – remember, if there’s one scum and one spawn over night, the scum nightkill has a slightly less than 50% chance of being totally random. So for example, if we have a claimed doc and cop out visible and are pretty sure we only have one scum left, leaving spawn alive has a reasonable chance (back of the envelope, in the low 40%ish range) of helping preserve our outed power roles. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/479 "2010-02-02T14:14:47Z")
**@Zeriel** - 1. is an interesting point, I’ll have a think about that. On 2, I made exactly that point earlier, but it only works if there is 1 scum left, and we probably wouldn’t know that for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Natlaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a88e57/32.png) [@Natlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Natlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202/480 "2010-02-02T14:27:59Z")
> [@KellyCriterion](#): > > Still here. I’m finding this all a bit overwhelming, and by the time I have caught up reading, I have virtually no energy left to post something meaningful. Or maybe I just feel that people are making mountains out of molehills when it comes to casting suspicion at the moment, which can be exhausting to read when it’s pages and pages long. > > Do I have to vote twice every round? Is one vote enough? You don’t have to vote or can only place one vote or place two votes. However if you don’t vote (or only vote for the obviously scummy spawn) then you’ll get some scrutiny why you aren’t ‘scum hunting’. It is typically hard to make a solid case on Day One but if you don’t the rest of us have little information to determine if you are town or scum. And we don’t want scum to sit back a laugh while town is working hard to make those mole hill mountains :). To goal Today is mostly to generate information, for example if there are two people up for lynch and one of them is scum we can later look if certain people tried to prevent the scum getting lynched. If you don’t vote we can’t guess whether you were if favor of the lynch or not. The game should calm down a bit in the coming Summers as we get some more solid information (death reveals) to work with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scum-mafia-on-cecil-pond-game-over/526202.md?page=25)